United States v. Andre M. Straughn
697 F. App'x 677
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Andre Martez Straughn pleaded guilty to: receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2), (b)(2)), transportation of child pornography (18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1)), and making a false statement (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)).
- District court imposed a within-Guidelines total sentence of 188 months.
- At sentencing the court applied a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based on Straughn providing false passwords to investigators trying to access his cell phone.
- Straughn appealed the enhancement, arguing his statements were not materially false and did not obstruct the investigation.
- The district court found the false passwords were materially false and prevented access to a device known to be used to view child pornography, thereby impeding the investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3C1.1 enhancement applies for obstruction of justice | Straughn: false passwords were not materially false and did not obstruct the investigation | Government: false passwords were materially false and significantly impeded the investigation | The enhancement applies; district court's findings affirmed |
| Standard of review for § 3C1.1 factual findings | N/A | N/A | Factual findings reviewed for clear error; application of findings to Guidelines reviewed de novo |
| Materiality threshold for false statements under § 3C1.1 | Straughn: his statements didn't meet materiality | Government: materiality standard is low; false passwords meet it | Court: materiality threshold is "conspicuously low"; district court not clearly erroneous in finding materiality |
| Whether making false statements to law enforcement outside oath ordinarily triggers § 3C1.1 | Straughn: relied on commentary that such false statements are not ordinarily covered | Government: Application Note 4(G) can bring non-oath false statements within § 3C1.1 when materially false and obstructive | Court: Application Note 4(G) applies here; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review: clear error for factual findings, de novo for application to Guidelines)
- United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2012) (clarifies clear-error review vocabulary)
- United States v. Dedeker, 961 F.2d 164 (11th Cir. 1992) (materiality threshold under § 3C1.1 is "conspicuously low")